Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell directly confronted President Trump‘s complaint that U.S. troop deployment’s make it the ‘world’s policeman’ and expressed his ‘grave concern’ about Trump’s policy moves in Syria.

McConnell issued the rebuke without directly blaming President Trump for the latest calamity in the region – although he said Trump’s policy threatens to put Iran on Israel’s door-step and fuel a ‘humanitarian catastrophe.’

Following Turkey’s incursion into Syria in territory that had been controlled by U.S.-allied members of the Kurdish minority, McConnell warned that the ‘door is wide open for resurgence of the Islamic State.’

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took on President Trump’s contention that having forces remain in Syria was akin to being the ‘world’s policeman’

In a Senate floor speech, McConnell said the situation created a power vacuum that could fuel the meddling influence of Russia, and ‘leaving northeastern Syria wide open Iran to extend reach unimpeded all the way from tehran to the door step of our friends in Israel.

He also confronted the view, espoused directly by President Trump, that the U.S. should pull out of the region rather serving as the ‘world’s policeman.’

‘I want to make something clear, the United States has taken the fight to Syria and Afghanistan because that is where our enemies are, that’s why we’re there. Fighting terrorists, exercising leadership and troubled regions and advancing U.S. interests around the world does not make us an evil empire or the world’s policeman,’ McConnell said.

This picture taken on October 15, 2019 shows a missile fired by Turkish forces towards the Syrian town of Ras al-Ain, from the Turkish side of the border at Ceylanpinar district in Sanliurfa on the first week of Turkey’s military operation against Kurdish forces

McConnell shared his ‘grave concern’ about the situation in Syria

‘When it looked like President Trump would withdraw from Syria at beginning of the year, 70 senators joined in warning of the risk of precipitously withdrawing from Syria or Afghanistan,’ McConnell noted in his floor speech

McConnell had also warned of his ‘grave concern’ in a written statement Monday that did not mention Trump by name. But in his floor speech Tuesday, he included such a reference.

‘When it looked like President Trump would withdraw from Syria at beginning of the year, 70 senators joined in warning of the risk of precipitously withdrawing from Syria or Afghanistan,’ McConnell noted.

But even as he challenged the president on a policy that has resulted in the release of ISIS prisoners, led to attacks against key regional allies, and even led to shelling by Turkish forces toward a U.S. troop-held position, he defended the president on impeachment by attacking Democrats.

‘House Democrats are finally indulging in their impeachment obsession. Full steam ahead,’ McConnell warned. ‘I don’t think many of us were expecting to witness a clinic in terms of fairness or due process. But even by their own partisan standards, House Democrats have already found new ways to lower the bar,’ he complained.

McConnell has said he was required by Senate rules to hold a trial should the House impeach Trump.

Trump’s Syria Mess

He resorts to sanctions as the harm from withdrawal builds.

By The Editorial Board

Oct. 14, 2019 7:18 pm ET

Syrians fleeing Turskih advance arrive to the town of Tal Tamr in north Syria, Oct. 14.PHOTO: BADERKHAN AHMAD/ASSOCIATED PRESS

What a fiasco. Foreign-policy blunders often take months or years to reveal their damaging consequences, but the harm from President Trump’s abrupt withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria is playing out almost in real time.

Critics said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would invade northern Syria despite Mr. Trump’s public warnings, and the Turkish strongman did. Critics said our Kurdish allies would strike a deal with Syria’s Bashar Assad to defend themselves, and the Kurds have. Critics said Islamic State prisoners held by the Kurds would be released and scatter to wage jihad again, and they are.

The mess compounded Monday when Mr. Trump authorized sanctions against several Turkish officials and agencies who are “contributing to Turkey’s destabilizing actions in northeast Syria.” The sanctions include financial measures and barring entry to the U.S. Mr. Trump also said he’s ending trade talks with Turkey and raising steel tariffs to 50%.

Mr. Trump now finds himself back in an economic and diplomatic brawl with Turkey that he said he wanted to avoid. Wouldn’t it have been easier simply to tell Mr. Erdogan, on that famous phone call two Sundays ago, that the U.S. wouldn’t tolerate a Turkish invasion against the Kurds and would use air power to stop it? Mr. Erdogan would have had to back down and continue negotiating a Syrian safe zone with the Kurds and the U.S.

Mr. Trump is also making matters worse with his unserious justifications. “After defeating 100% of the ISIS Caliphate, I largely moved our troops out of Syria. Let Syria and Assad protect the Kurds and fight Turkey for their own land,” he tweeted Monday. “Anyone who wants to assist Syria in protecting the Kurds is good with me, whether it is Russia, China, or Napoleon Bonaparte. I hope they all do great, we are 7,000 miles away!”

We suppose the Napoleon line was a joke, but the world is laughing at an American President. Mr. Trump was able to project an image of strength in his early days as he prosecuted the war against ISIS and used force to impose a cost on Mr. Assad for using chemical weapons. But that image has faded as he has indulged his inner Rand Paul and claims at every opportunity that the main goal of his foreign policy is to put an end to “endless wars.”

This is simple-minded isolationism, and it’s a message to the world’s rogues that a U.S. President has little interest in engaging on behalf of American allies or interests. Friends like Israel and Saudi Arabia are quietly dismayed, while Iran, Russia and Hezbollah can’t believe Mr. Trump has so glibly abandoned U.S. commitments and military partners.

By now it’s not unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Trump’s foreign policy can be distilled into two tactics—sanctions and tariffs. Mr. Trump wields them willy-nilly against friend and foe alike as substitutes for diplomacy and the credible threat of military force.

Mr. Trump won’t like to hear it, but the Syrian mess is hurting him at home too. Republicans who have stood by him through the Russia fight and more are questioning his judgment as Commander in Chief in an increasingly dangerous world. With impeachment looming, he can’t afford to alienate more friends.

THE PENTAGONannounced on Monday that the U.S. was pulling all of its troops out of northeastern Syria at President Donald Trump’s direction, completing a withdrawal he had started by Twitter declaration a week earlier. The move further clears the way for a full-on invasion by Turkey, whose soldiers have already been accused of executing noncombatants. In the chaos, hundreds of Islamic State detainees have reportedly escaped.

Trump defended his decision in a series of early-morning tweets on Monday. “The same people who got us into the Middle East mess are the people who most want to stay there!” he wrote. “Never ending wars will end!”

Trump’s abandonment of eastern Syria and the U.S. military’s Kurdish allies has put progressive Democrats — many of whom also favor withdrawing from overseas military operations — in a delicate spot. Over the past week, they have been trying to thread the needle between condemning Trump for recklessly abandoning an ally and emphasizing that withdrawing U.S. troops should be an eventual policy goal.

Trump’s decision has showcased what a worst-case scenario for expedited military withdrawal could look like, making it harder for progressive Democratic presidential candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to press their cases against “endless wars” on the campaign trail. The question of how progressives can go about drawing down U.S. military commitments without repeating Trump’s calamitous actions would be an obvious pick for Tuesday night’s Democratic debate.

So far, the Democratic candidates have been critical of Trump but light on specifics about what they would do differently. Last week, Sanders condemned Trump’s withdrawal from Syria, telling reporters that “as somebody who does not want to see American troops bogged down in countries all over the world — you don’t turn your back on allies who have fought and died alongside American troops. You just don’t do that.” But when George Stephanopoulos asked Sunday morning on ABC for Sanders to explain the difference between his and Trump’s approaches, Sanders responded simply that Trump “lies. I don’t.”

Warren’s response was similarly vague. She tweeted that “Trump recklessly betrayed our Kurdish partners” and that “we should bring our troops home, but we need to do so in a way that respects our security.”

Trump Turned His Back on Syrian Kurds. Here’s How They View Their New Precarious Position.

Ro Khanna, a Democratic representative from California and co-chair of Sanders’s 2020 campaign, told The Intercept that progressives urgently need to make the case for a “doctrine of responsible withdrawal.”

“I don’t believe that withdrawal from a progressive perspective means a moral indifference to the lives of the places that we leave,” Khanna said in a phone interview. “It’s not an ‘America First’ approach that says our interests and our American lives are the only things that have moral worth. Rather, our withdrawal is based on an understanding of the limitations of American power to shape and restructure societies. It emphasizes the need for effective diplomacy and understands our moral obligations in these places.”

The U.S. should not have withdrawn troops without negotiating a deal that would have kept Turkey from invading Syria, backed by a threat to withhold future arms sales and economic assistance, Khanna told The Intercept. “We could have used all those points of leverage to get their commitment that they wouldn’t slaughter the Kurds.”

Another key difference between Trump’s approach and that of progressives is their level of trust for civil service expertise, Khanna said. “What this shows is that it’s not enough to have a president with certain instincts. Foreign policy requires great expertise. You need a progressive president who understands the importance of military restraint, but who also has the ability to put together an extraordinary foreign policy team to implement the goals that they may have.”

Far from admiring Trump’s approach to Syria, many anti-interventionists and foreign policy experts in D.C. view it as a blueprint for how not to withdraw from a conflict, according to Adam Wunische, a researcher with the Quincy Institute, a new pro-diplomacy, noninterventionist, and nonpartisan think tank.

“What we should have been doing from the very beginning is once we achieved the limited objective of destroying ISIS territory, they should have immediately begun contemplating what kind of peace or settlement could come afterwards,” Wunische told The Intercept. “To my knowledge, the U.S. is one of the only actors that can effectively talk to both the Turks and the Kurds. So they should have been trying to find an acceptable political arrangement for all the parties involved that doesn’t involve an endless, ill-defined military presence for the U.S.”

The Quincy Institute is working on a report outlining a possible plan for U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan that would avoid the type of disorder on display in northeastern Syria, Wunische said, though the timing of the report remains unclear.

Join Our Newsletter

Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.

I’m in

Throughout the 2020 Democratic primary campaign, a number of candidates have railed against “endless wars.” But in a conversation that has been defined by intricate domestic policy proposals and detailed outlines of how to structure a wealth tax, candidates have said little about the rest of the world and even less about how they would wind down overseas conflicts.

Sanders, for example, has called for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan “as expeditiously as possible.” Warren has said “it’s long past time to bring our troops home, and I would begin to do so immediately.” Joe Biden has said he would bring “American combat troops in Afghanistan home during my first term,” but left the door open for a “residual U.S. military presence” that would be “focused on counterterrorism operations.” When asked during a July debate whether he would withdraw from Afghanistan during the first year of his presidency, Pete Buttigieg, the South Bend mayor and Navy Reserve veteran who spent seven months in Afghanistan, answered emphatically in the affirmative.

But aside from seeking a diplomatic solution, candidates have said very little about their policies for ending the war. And as in Syria, stakes for U.S. allies in Afghanistan are high.

A January study by the Rand Corporation found that a “precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan” would have far-reaching consequences. The legitimacy for the U.S.-backed Kabul government would plummet, the report argued, and the Taliban would extend its control and influence. People all across the country would turn to regional militias and rival warlords for basic security.

“I don’t think that anyone, whether they promise it or not, is going to get out of Afghanistan in a week,” said Wuinsche. “What we need to focus on is, what is the political solution that we think is possible, and how do we get there? That requires marshaling all of these different tools of foreign policy, not just the military.”

Kate Kizer, policy director for the D.C.-based advocacy group Win Without War, stressed that one of the most revealing differences between progressives and Trump is how they would treat a conflict’s refugees. Under Trump, the U.S. has accepted historically low numbers of refugees and closed the door on future Syrian immigrants applying for Temporary Protected Status.

“One of the cruelest parts of Trump’s policy is the fact that, in addition to fueling more bloodshed with this decision, he’s also banning any types of civilians who would be fleeing from the conflict,” Kizer said. “In a situation like Syria and even Afghanistan, there’s a way to responsibly withdraw and then there’s a way to cut and run, which is what Trump has shown he has a predilection for. But I’m not sitting here saying that any type of military withdraw will necessarily be bloodless.”

Story 2: The Search of Leakers in Trump Administration — Videos

RUST NO ONE

Trump Suspects a Spiteful John Bolton Is Behind Some of the Ukraine Leaks

Trump fears the leaks are now coming from the people he chose to serve him—and that only increases the paranoia currently infecting the West Wing.

Asawin Suebsaeng

White House Reporter

Sam Stein

Politics Editor

Updated 10.15.19 12:08PM ET / Published 10.15.19 4:58AM ET

Photo Illustration by Lyne Lucien/The Daily Beast/Getty

At a critical juncture in his presidency, facing a rapidly unfolding impeachment inquiry by House Democrats, Donald Trump is feeling besieged by snitches.

In recent weeks, numerous leaks have appeared in the pages of The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and other major papers and news outlets detailing the president’s attempts to enlist foreign leaders to help dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and also aid Trump’s quest to discredit Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s concluded investigation. And as is his MO, the media-obsessed president has been fixated on not just the identity of the whistleblower behind the internal complaint that brought this scandal to the fore, but also on who, exactly, has been namelessly feeding intel to the press.

In the course of casual conversations with advisers and friends, President Trump has privately raised suspicions that a spiteful John Bolton, his notoriously hawkish former national security adviser, could be one of the sources behind the flood of leaks against him, three people familiar with the comments said. At one point, one of those sources recalled, Trump guessed that Bolton was behind one of the anonymous accounts that listed the former national security adviser as one of the top officials most disturbed by the Ukraine-related efforts of Trump and Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney who remains at the center of activities that spurred the impeachment inquiry.

“[Trump] was clearly implying [it, saying] something to the effect of, ‘Oh, gee, I wonder who the source on that could be,’” this source said, referring to the president’s speculation. Bolton, for his part, told The Daily Beast last month that allegations that he was a leaker in Trump’s midst are “flatly incorrect.”

The former national security adviser—who departed the administration last month on awful, mutually bitter terms—is working on a book about his time serving Trump, and has “a lot to dish,” one knowledgeable source noted.

Neither Bolton nor White House spokespeople provided comment for this story. Matt Schlapp, an influential conservative activist with close ties to the White House, said his assumption was that the leaks were coming from “career folks inside who hate Trump” and that the president and his campaign had “14 months of this” to come. As for Bolton, Schlapp said, “He’s smarter than that, although he does aggressively defend himself.”

Indeed, Bolton’s name surfaced Monday before House impeachment inquiry committees, when Hill reportedly testified that he told her to alert the chief lawyer for the National Security Council that Giuliani was working with Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, on an operation with legal implications, the Times reported late Monday. “I am not part of whatever drug deal Rudy and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Bolton told Hill to tell White House lawyers, according to sources familiar with the testimony.

“I have not spoken to John about [his comments, as conveyed by Hill],” Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Tuesday morning. “John is a longtime friend. I have no idea why John is doing this. My best guess is that he’s confused and bought into a false media narrative without bothering to call me about it.”

Regarding Bolton’s reported comment about Mulvaney being involved in this figurative Ukraine “drug deal,” the former New York City mayor insisted that “Mick wasn’t involved in this. I don’t recall having any lengthy conversation with him about this subject… I don’t recall ever having a lengthy conversation [about Ukraine] with John, either.”

Trump has felt under siege from within before, including at various flashpoints of his presidency. For instance, near the end of the Mueller probe, the president became so distrustful and resentful toward Don McGahn, his own White House counsel at the time, he started asking those close to him, “Is [Don] wearing a wire?”

But the current sense that he has been undermined by people whom he brought into his orbit has come at a critical juncture and colored some of the decisions he has made since the whistleblower complaint became public. The president has openly declared that the whistleblower committed an act of treason. He has attempted to stop prominent advisers—including Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, a man who donated $1 million to the Trump inauguration—from testifying to Congress, only to apparently fail. On Monday, Fiona Hill, Trump’s former top adviser on Russia and Europe, was on Capitol Hill, where she reportedly told lawmakers that Sondland and Giuliani circumventedthe standard national-security process on high-profile Ukraine matters. The president has struggled to add to his current legal team, and appeared to begin putting some distance between himself and Giuliani last week.

And when outside allies began to talk about constructing a war room to help with impeachment, Trump shot down the concept, in part out of a sense that he couldn’t rely on them to get the message out right. One top White House aide subsequently labeled the idea an exercise by “outside peeps trying to self-aggrandize.”

The impression left on Republicans is one of a president increasingly driven by paranoia and a desire for insularity—and not, necessarily, to his own benefit.

“There is a certain level of frustration that all the sudden the president says something, then Rudy does, and it is not always consistent. There is a frustration that not everybody knows what they should be doing. It is not that they can’t defend the president it is a frustration that they don’t know exactly how they are supposed to defend the president,” said John Brabender, a longtime GOP consultant. “From the president’s perspective, this whole thing is a witch hunt and is outrageous and, therefore, it shouldn’t even need explanation…But with that said, you can’t just be angry. You need a unified communications team.”

According to those who’ve known the president, the sense that a good chunk of the government has never fully accepted his presidency and has actively worked to undermine it has animated much of his activity over the past few weeks. And though they believe he has a point, they also wonder if it is making him functionally incapable of taking the advice of some advisers: to simply ignore impeachment and apply his attention to other facets of governance.

Trump, they add, is preternaturally incapable of ignoring press about him and lingers particularly on leaks that depict atmospherics of his inner sanctum, the West Wing, and his internal well-being.

“In my experience, what he despises is somebody writing that Donald Trump feels under siege and his emotions are this and his thinking is this,” said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide. “He hates people saying what he is thinking… And one of his most frequent tricks in terms of talking about himself on background [as an anonymous source] is him having the reporter say [he is] someone ‘familiar with the president’s thinking.’”

Nunberg said he had yet to see a blind quote in any recent report that would lead him to believe that Trump is cold-calling reporters. But the president is certainly working the fourth estate. Democratic aides were left shaking their heads last week when they received an email from the White House with the subject line, “Article from President Trump” and a PDF attachment of a Kimberly Strassel Wall Street Journal column.

“He’s apparently so anxious about GOP support in the Senate, he’s taken to sending WSJ columns against the House inquiry,” said a Senate source.

Still, for all of Trump’s grousing and preoccupation with who is and isn’t stabbing him in the back, loyalty has always been a one-way street for this president. Last week, after the news broke that Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Soviet-born businessmen tied to Giuliani, were arrested on charges of violating campaign-finance law, a reporter at the White House asked Trump if the former New York mayor was still his personal attorney. The president responded that he didn’t know.

Though the president would later tweet out his support for Giuliani over the weekend, Trump has a long track record for being loyal to and supportive of a longtime associate, friend, or staffer—up until the moment he’s not. Perhaps the quintessential example of this is that of one of the president’s former attorneys, Michael Cohen, who famously turned on Trump after becoming convinced that the president had abandoned him while he was in the crosshairs of federal prosecutors.

Asked by The Daily Beast last week if the president told him that he still had his lawyer’s back—an attorney who further earned the president’s trust by defending Trump during the Mueller investigation—Giuliani let out a big belly-laugh and responded, “There’s nothing, [no knife], in my back.”

Story 1: President Trump’s On Way To Helicopter News Conference — Videos

Trump says calls to investigate Biden is about fighting corruption

Story 2: Good October Jobs Report With 3.5% U-3 Unemployment Rate Lowest Since 1969, 6.9% U-6 Unemployment Rate, 136,000 Jobs Created in September With Unchanged Labor Participation Rate of 63.2% Heading Slowly Back To Normal Range of 66% to 67% — No Recession In Sight — Videos

Kudlow on September jobs report, reacts to recession fears

US economy added 136K jobs in September

September unemployment rate falls to a 50-year low at 3.5%, job payrolls up 136,000

Jobs report: Unemployment at 50-year low

Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

Not in Labor Force

95,599,000

Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Download:

Year

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2000

69142

69120

69338

69267

69853

69876

70398

70401

70645

70782

70579

70488

2001

70088

70409

70381

70956

71414

71592

71526

72136

71676

71817

71876

72010

2002

72623

72010

72343

72281

72260

72600

72827

72856

72554

73026

73508

73675

2003

73960

74015

74295

74066

74268

73958

74767

75062

75249

75324

75280

75780

2004

75319

75648

75606

75907

75903

75735

75730

76113

76526

76399

76259

76581

2005

76808

76677

76846

76514

76409

76673

76721

76642

76739

76958

77138

77394

2006

77339

77122

77161

77318

77359

77317

77535

77451

77757

77634

77499

77376

2007

77506

77851

77982

78818

78810

78671

78904

79461

79047

79532

79105

79238

2008

78554

79156

79087

79429

79102

79314

79395

79466

79790

79736

80189

80380

2009

80529

80374

80953

80762

80705

80938

81367

81780

82495

82766

82865

83813

2010

83349

83304

83206

82707

83409

84075

84199

84014

84347

84895

84590

85240

2011

85441

85637

85623

85603

85834

86144

86383

86111

85940

86308

86312

86589

2012

87888

87765

87855

88239

88100

88073

88405

88803

88613

88429

88836

88722

2013

88900

89516

89990

89780

89827

89803

90156

90355

90481

91708

91302

91563

2014

91563

91603

91230

92070

91938

92107

92016

92099

92406

92240

92350

92695

2015

92671

93237

93454

93249

92839

93649

93868

93931

94580

94353

94245

93856

2016

94026

93872

93689

94077

94475

94498

94470

94272

94281

94553

94911

94963

2017

94389

94392

94378

94419

94857

94833

94769

94651

94372

95330

95323

95473

2018

95657

95033

95451

95721

95787

95513

95633

96264

96235

95821

95886

95649

2019

95010

95208

95577

96223

96215

96057

95874

95510

95599

U-6 Unemployment Rate

6.9%

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Download:

Year

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2000

7.1

7.2

7.1

6.9

7.1

7.0

7.0

7.1

7.0

6.8

7.1

6.9

2001

7.3

7.4

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.9

7.8

8.1

8.7

9.3

9.4

9.6

2002

9.5

9.5

9.4

9.7

9.5

9.5

9.6

9.6

9.6

9.6

9.7

9.8

2003

10.0

10.2

10.0

10.2

10.1

10.3

10.3

10.1

10.4

10.2

10.0

9.8

2004

9.9

9.7

10.0

9.6

9.6

9.5

9.5

9.4

9.4

9.7

9.4

9.2

2005

9.3

9.3

9.1

8.9

8.9

9.0

8.8

8.9

9.0

8.7

8.7

8.6

2006

8.4

8.4

8.2

8.1

8.2

8.4

8.5

8.4

8.0

8.2

8.1

7.9

2007

8.4

8.2

8.0

8.2

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.4

8.4

8.4

8.4

8.8

2008

9.2

9.0

9.1

9.2

9.7

10.1

10.5

10.8

11.0

11.8

12.6

13.6

2009

14.2

15.2

15.8

15.9

16.5

16.5

16.4

16.7

16.7

17.1

17.1

17.1

2010

16.7

17.0

17.1

17.1

16.6

16.4

16.4

16.5

16.8

16.6

16.9

16.6

2011

16.2

16.0

15.9

16.1

15.8

16.1

15.9

16.1

16.4

15.8

15.5

15.2

2012

15.2

15.0

14.5

14.6

14.7

14.8

14.8

14.6

14.8

14.4

14.4

14.4

2013

14.6

14.4

13.8

14.0

13.8

14.2

13.8

13.6

13.5

13.6

13.1

13.1

2014

12.7

12.6

12.6

12.3

12.2

12.0

12.1

12.0

11.7

11.5

11.4

11.2

2015

11.3

11.0

10.8

10.8

10.9

10.4

10.3

10.2

10.0

9.8

10.0

9.9

2016

9.8

9.7

9.8

9.7

9.9

9.5

9.7

9.6

9.7

9.6

9.4

9.2

2017

9.3

9.1

8.7

8.6

8.5

8.5

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.0

8.0

8.1

2018

8.2

8.2

7.9

7.8

7.7

7.8

7.5

7.4

7.5

7.5

7.6

7.6

2019

8.1

7.3

7.3

7.3

7.1

7.2

7.0

7.2

6.9

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until USDL-19-1735
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, October 4, 2019
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2019
The unemployment rate declined to 3.5 percent in September, and total nonfarm
payroll employment rose by 136,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. Employment in health care and in professional and business services continued
to trend up.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey
measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics.
The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry.
For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two
surveys, see the Technical Note.
Household Survey Data
In September, the unemployment rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 3.5 percent.
The last time the rate was this low was in December 1969, when it also was 3.5 percent.
Over the month, the number of unemployed persons decreased by 275,000 to 5.8 million.
(See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Whites declined to 3.2
percent in September. The jobless rates for adult men (3.2 percent), adult women
(3.1 percent), teenagers (12.5 percent), Blacks (5.5 percent), Asians (2.5 percent),
and Hispanics (3.9 percent) showed little or no change over the month. (See tables A-1,
A-2, and A-3.)
Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary
jobs declined by 304,000 to 2.6 million in September, while the number of new entrants
increased by 103,000 to 677,000. New entrants are unemployed persons who never
previously worked. (See table A-11.)
In September, the number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks fell by 339,000
to 1.9 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
was little changed at 1.3 million and accounted for 22.7 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)
The labor force participation rate held at 63.2 percent in September. The employment-
population ratio, at 61.0 percent, was little changed over the month but was up by
0.6 percentage point over the year. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 4.4 million in September.
These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time
because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs.
(See table A-8.)
In September, 1.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by
278,000 from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were
not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 321,000 discouraged workers in September,
little changed from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged
workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are
available for them. The remaining 978,000 persons marginally attached to the labor
force in September had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or
family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 136,000 in September. Job growth has
averaged 161,000 per month thus far in 2019, compared with an average monthly gain
of 223,000 in 2018. In September, employment continued to trend up in health care and in
professional and business services. (See table B-1.)
In September, health care added 39,000 jobs, in line with its average monthly gain over
the prior 12 months. Ambulatory health care services (+29,000) and hospitals (+8,000)
added jobs over the month.
Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up in September
(+34,000). The industry has added an average of 35,000 jobs per month thus far in 2019,
compared with 47,000 jobs per month in 2018.
Employment in government continued on an upward trend in September (+22,000). Federal
hiring for the 2020 Census was negligible (+1,000). Government has added 147,000 jobs
over the past 12 months, largely in local government.
Employment in transportation and warehousing edged up in September (+16,000). Within the
industry, job growth occurred in transit and ground passenger transportation (+11,000)
and in couriers and messengers (+4,000).
Retail trade employment changed little in September (-11,000). Within the industry,
clothing and clothing accessories stores lost 14,000 jobs, while food and beverage stores
added 9,000 jobs. Since reaching a peak in January 2017, retail trade has lost 197,000
jobs.
Employment in other major industries, including mining, construction, manufacturing,
wholesale trade, information, financial activities, and leisure and hospitality, showed
little change over the month.
In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls,
at $28.09, were little changed (-1 cent), after rising by 11 cents in August. Over the
past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 2.9 percent. In September, average
hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees rose by 4 cents
to $23.65. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.4
hours in September. In manufacturing, the average workweek and overtime remained at 40.5
hours and 3.2 hours, respectively. The average workweek of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees held at 33.6 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised up by 7,000 from
+159,000 to +166,000, and the change for August was revised up by 38,000 from +130,000 to
+168,000. With these revisions, employment gains in July and August combined were 45,000
more than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received
from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the
recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged 157,000 per
month over the last 3 months.
_____________
The Employment Situation for October is scheduled to be released on Friday,
November 1, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Footnotes(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.(P) Preliminary

NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2018 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders hasn’t left the hospital since Tuesday night, and is still recovering from an operation to place two stents in a blocked artery.

But the 78-year-old socialist firebrand, the oldest person in the 2020 field, plans to be on stage for a Democratic presidential primary debate on October 15 in Ohio.

‘Bernie is up and about, his wife Jane said in a statement. ‘Yesterday, he spent much of the day talking with staff about policies, cracking jokes with the nurses and doctors, and speaking with his family on the phone.’

‘His doctors are pleased with his progress, and there has been no need for any additional procedures,’ she said. ‘We expect Bernie will be discharged and on a plane back to Burlington before the end of the weekend. He’ll take a few days to rest, but he’s ready to get back out there and is looking forward to the October debate.’

Sanders canceled a string of presidential campaign events on Wednesday after suffering what a spokesman said was ‘chest discomfort’ that required the stents.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, pictured Sunday at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., hasn’t left a Las Vegas hospital where he was treated for a blokced artery on Tuesday night

Sanders’ wife Jane (at right) said the senator has been cracking jokes with doctors and nurses, and speaking to family members on the phone, but isn’t expected to leave the hospital for a few more days

The 78-year-old presidential candidate, the oldest in the 2020 field, will have to take it easy but expects to be home in Vermont by the end of the weekend

AGES OF THE 2020 CANDIDATES ON INAUGURATION DAY

As of September 20, 2019 there were 22 declared major party candidates in the 2020 presidential election, including 19 Democrats and three Republicans.

Here is the age each of them would be on Inauguration Day 2021 if he or she were to win:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders: 79 years, 4 months, 13 days

Former Vice President Joe Biden: 78 years, 2 months, 1 day

Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld (R): 75 years, 5 months, 21 days

President Donald Trump (R): 74 years, 7 months, 7 days

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren: 71 years, 6 months, 30 days

Former Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak: 69 years, 1 month, 9 days

Author Marianne Williamson: 68 years, 6 months, 13 days

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer: 63 years, 6 months, 26 days

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar: 60 years, 7 months, 27 days

Former Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh (R): 59 years, 25 days

Maryland Rep. John Delaney: 57 years, 9 months, 5 days

California Sen. Kamala Harris: 56 years, 3 months, 1 day

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet: 56 years, 1 month, 25 days

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock: 54 years, 9 months, 11 days

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker: 51 years, 8 months, 25 days

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke: 48 years, 3 months, 26 days

Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan: 47 years, 6 months, 5 days

Miramar, Florida Mayor Wayne Messam: 46 years, 7 months, 14 days

Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro: 46 years, 4 month, 5 days

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang: 46 years, 8 days

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: 39 years, 9 months, 9 days

South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg: 39 years, 2 days

Sanders showed up at a Charleston, South Carolina event in March with a bandaged head for what his campaign said was a cut from a glass shower door

Senior adviser Jeff Weaver said in a statement Wednesday that ‘[f]ollowing medical evaluation and testing he was found to have blockage in one artery and two stents were inserted.’

‘Sen. Sanders is conversing and in good spirits. He will be resting up over the next few days, Weaver added. ‘We are canceling his events and appearances until further notice, and we will continue to provide appropriate updates.’

Sanders updated his supporters on Wednesday and took the opportunity to tout his single-payer ‘Medicare for All’ proposal.

‘Thanks for all the well wishes,’ he wrote. ‘I’m feeling good. I’m fortunate to have good health care and great doctors and nurses helping me to recover. None of us know when a medical emergency might affect us. And no one should fear going bankrupt if it occurs. Medicare for All!’

The Sanders campaign on Wednesday also canceled at least $1.3 million in ad spending that was scheduled to buy time on Iowa television and radio stations.

Sanders released a doctor’s note during the 2016 presidential campaign saying that he had no history of heart disease and was otherwise in good health.

U.S. doctors insert about 2 million stents per year into patients, according to Harvard Medical School. It’s a procedure the American Heart Association describes as ‘fairly common’ and says carries fewer complication risks than open-heart bypass surgery.

But the American Medical Association issued a report in 2013 that included stenting among the most highly ‘overused’ medical treatments.

Sanders has canceled campaign events before.

His campaign called off appearances in South Carolina last month in the wake of a Democratic primary debate where his voice sounded strained.

Sanders updated his supporters on Wednesday and took the opportunity to tout the single-payer ‘Medicare for All’ proposal

Bernie Sanders alternated between gruff and gleeful during a public campaign event Monday in Hooksett, new Hampshire

Democratic presidnetial candidates have had campaign health scares before: Hillary Clinton raised fears in 2016, collapsing at a 9/11 memorial event in New York City

In March he showed up at South Carolina campaign events with a bandaged head after treatment for what his campaign said was a cut that he suffered in the shower.

He received a half-dozen stitches at a walk-in medical clinic.

The cantankerous senator would be 83 years old at the end of his first term in office if he were to win the White House.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who turned 95 this week, said in September that ‘I hope there’s an age limit’ for the presidency.

‘If I were just 80 years old, if I was 15 years younger, I don’t believe I could undertake the duties I experienced when I was president,’ he said.

WHAT IS A STENT? AND WHY WOULD A PATIENT GET MORE THAN ONE AT A TIME?

by Mia de Graaf, US Health Editor

Stents hold arteries open to help improve blood flow to the heart and relieve chest pain.

Past president of the American Heart Association, Dr Sidney Smith, MD, told DailyMail.com how stents work and when they are placed.

HOW IS THE PROCEDURE PERFORMED?

A stent is a wire mesh tube that props open arteries.

To open the narrowed artery, the surgeon may perform what’s known as an angioplasty.

It involves making a small incision in a patient’s arm or leg, through which a wire with an attached deflated balloon is thread through up to the coronary arteries.

In some cases, this is all that’s needed to break up the blockage, without putting any permanent artery-openers in place.

Surgeons will sometimes put in a stent, however, to keep the arteries held open.

The stent surrounds the balloon and expands with it when it is inflated.

After the balloon has been deflated and removed, the stent stays in the artery permanently.

A stent is a wire mesh tube used to prop open an artery during an angioplasty. Once the balloon is removed, the stent remains to keep the artery open

HOW COMMON IS IT?

Angioplasties are increasingly common in the United States and Mexico due to rising rates of heart issues.

And stents are becoming increasingly common in angioplasty patients, since it is very common for the arteries to narrow again if nothing is put in place (this is known as restenosis, and happens in about a third of cases).

CAN IT BE PERFORMED DAYS OR WEEKS AFTER A HEART ATTACK?

Yes, depending on what kind of heart attack was suffered.

There are two kinds of blockages: a STEMI (which is a complete blockage) and an NSTEMI (a partial blockage).

STEMI stands for ‘ST-elevation myocardial infarction’, which means the patient has suffered cardiac enzyme changes, and changes to their electrical heart activity, as seen on an EKG scan.

A non-STEMI heart attack, or NSTEMI heart attack, is less urgent. It means they suffered enzyme changes but no changes on their EKG.

‘A STEMI is a very big, severe heart attack where a patient comes into the emergency room and the artery is totally blocked, and needs to be opened up straight away and the stent is placed,’ Dr Smith, Professor of Medicine, Cardiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, explained.

‘That’s the patient that goes direct into surgery.’

‘In other cases, the patient may have a non-STEMI. They may have chest pain, and they come into the hospital with enzyme changes but no changes on their EKG [electrical activity of the heart]. The need is not urgent. Stents are placed but it can be days later.’

WHY WOULD A PATIENT GET MORE THAN ONE STENT AT A TIME?

It depends how many blockages they had, or how many vessels were affected.

‘The decision to place stents in the coronary arteries is based on the number of significant blockages that’s there,’ Dr Smith explained.

‘Three is not out of the ordinary. Sometimes you place just one, sometimes two or three – it completely depends.

‘You place stents where there is a significant blockage. It could be that there were two or three vessels involved, or three blockages in one vessel. That would warrant three stents.’

He adds that the amount of blockages has nothing to do with the severity of the heart attack, or whether it would be a STEMI or NSTEMI.

HOW IS THE RECOVERY?

For patients being treated for chest pain, most are usually able to go home the same day of the operation. Patients are often advised to avoid strenuous activities and driving for at least a week.

But Dr Smith said it depends on each patient, and particularly on whether they have other underlying health issues.

‘It depends on how well their heart is pumping,’ Dr Smith said.

‘Patients are often able to go home within 24 hours, usually into cardiac rehabilitation.’

As for the patient taking a trans-Atlantic flight, Dr Smith said that would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

‘It depends on how they’re doing, and how long the flight is,’ he said.

Any reader who thinks they may be suffering a heart attack, or may have suffered one, should never diagnose themselves. Always call 911 if you think you might be having a heart attack. The EMS crew in your ambulance will route you to the right hospital based on your location